Do all y'all want Section B "corrected" to have it state specifically that the screening is to detect the presence of metal objects that may be guns, which seems the most logical explanation of what the drafter was trying to say?
Would that really make the bill any better?
I'm still hung up on how the Capitol Police are going to determine who is lawfully possessing a handgun and who is not. With all the attendant flaws the current procedure reduces the capitol Police to one objective measure. For ease of moving large numbers of people through a checkpoint nothing beats governmental permission slips. I happen to agree with the loudest opponent of that process that there should be "something else" but I'm darned if I can figure out what it might be that does not involve submitting to governmental pre-approval. Perhaps the collective hive experience can figure it out?
stay safe.
I agree with you, Skid. The sub-rosa intent of this bill is to prevent ANYone from carrying into the GAB, The People's House. The bill's proponent as much as said so when he proposed courthouse-type lockers where carriers would have to give up their firearms upon entering. It seems like the bill's proponent has no clue how many hundreds of lockers would be needed on Lobby Day...
OTOH, The screening process seems completely unnecessary. LACs with CHPs (Sorry, Peter), have ALREADY been screened and found to be legal possessors of handguns, so that "permission slip" provision should not be abrogated. For LACs who do not have a CHP the question remains open regarding what the Capitol Police will impose as their screening process. That's why I believe the bill, if it's not killed outright in Committee, must be amended to include specifics on what the Capitol Police will create as a screening process. Otherwise, the legislators will vote blindly and give the Capitol Police carte blanche in creating onerous procedures ... which, I believe, is the intent of the bill.